jperry@UNIX.SRI.COM.UUCP (05/28/87)
It is interesting to note that you list Lisp, Bliss, and FP in the
"clear, simple language" category that you imply I am supporting. Actually
I find Lisp, Bliss, and FP to be abominations. Their simple syntax is
a misleading disguise for they lead to programs whose semantics are
virtually unintelligible.
There is nothing clear to me at all about the intent of a Lisp, Bliss,
or FP program upon brief inspection of the code. Oddly enough, programs
written in declarative languages (like Hope, FP, or Prolog) are the
most obfuscated of all --- the clauses of which they consist seem quite
clear when described in English but when written in an actual syntax
with anonymous variables, cut/fail operators, and recursive rules the
reader might know what's supposed to happen conceptually but goes
bonkers trying to figure out HOW THE COMPUTER GOES ABOUT solving the
problem.
AI languages in general should be suspect on strictly empirical
grounds. The programs written in those languages are known for being
far buggier than normal commercial software and far more unreliable
when the programs are asked to operate beyond strictly tested limits.
It's no secret that AI is fast approaching its own version of a
"nuclear winter" --- even top-notch companies like Quintas (the Prolog
people) are barely staying afloat. Yet I have not heard a single
soul conjecture that just maybe the hoary tools used to generate these
programs might have something to do with their colossal failures.
Again, I claim, as I have in many past memos and will probably
continue to do so, that it is in the nature of the programmer's ego
to use the most arcane, "in-group" tools available to solve a
problem. God forbid that it would be revealed that something is
easier than it looks rather than harder.
John PerryPETERSC0@VUCTRVAX.BITNET.UUCP (05/28/87)
> From: arpa%"jperry@sri-unix.arpa" 27-MAY-1987 22:48 > It is interesting to note that you list Lisp, Bliss, and FP in the > "clear, simple language" category that you imply I am supporting. Actually > I find Lisp, Bliss, and FP to be abominations. Their simple syntax is > a misleading disguise for they lead to programs whose semantics are > virtually unintelligible. Hmmm... It seems to me (philosophically speaking), that almost any language can be either readable or nonreadable depending on the style of the person doing the coding and on the familiarity of the reader with the language. Pascal enforces a (very) few rules of style, as does C. I can write things in either language which are readable or unreadable depending on my intent. My lisp has had to be readable for classwork, but I have seen a lot of strange-looking code out there. Doesn't it all depend on the coder in the final analysis? -Chris